February 18, 2010

Would you buy a used car from the Florida Tomato Growers Exchange?

FTGE’s “New Social Responsibility Program” an old lemon with a fresh coat of paint…

We told you yesterday that we’d have more to say about the FTGE’s big unveiling of a “New Social Responsibility Program,” and now that we’ve had a chance to take a look under the hood, here’s what we’ve found:

The FTGE’s “new” code of conduct is 90% identical to it’s old code of conduct, known as SAFE.

[SAFE, or “Socially Accountable Farm Employers,” was unveiled, also with much fanfare, in 2006 but discredited from the outset by its total lack of worker input or enforcement mechanisms, and ultimately undone by the finding of slavery operations on SAFE-certified farms. This is also a helpful read for a look at the origins of SAFE.]

Where the “new” code is different from SAFE, the FTGE has taken provisions from the CIW’s Fair Food code of conduct, but not before rendering those provisions meaningless by carefully removing any and all forms of worker participation.
The true character of the FTGE’s “new” code is perhaps most clearly revealed in what its drafters chose not to borrow from the CIW’s Fair Food code.

In short, what the FTGE has done is take a broken-down old lemon of a code and slap some fresh paint on it. And now they’re trying to sell it as a “new social responsibility program.”

What follows is a detailed breakdown of the above three points of analysis. It’s a little technical, but worth reading through to get a full picture of the FTGE’s strategy here.

But after this, we're going back to reporting on real news from the Campaign for Fair Food. Despite all the fanfare, the FTGE’s whole “New Social Responsibility Program” is old news. Even their announcement that they would no longer fine their members for participating in the penny-per-pound agreements is old news – they announced the same thing back in October of last year following the defection of Florida’s third largest tomato grower, East Coast Growers and Packers.

In other words (and this is especially true for the fields): Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss...

**********

What follows, along the three lines of analysis outlined above, is a comparison of the FTGE's new code vs. SAFE, the new code vs. the Fair Food code, and what the drafters of the new code chose not to include from the CIW's Fair Food code:

1) Old Lemon: The FTGE’s “new” code is 90% identical to their “old” code, or SAFE:

SAFE

Introduction: As key players in the food supply chain, we take an interest in the conditions in which we grow and harvest our products. We constructively engage with our customers, employees, and other stakeholders as we strive for continuous improvement. We understand that our reputations, and those of our customers, depend upon the quality of the products that we provide, and that this quality includes not merely the freshness, taste, cost, and timeliness to market of our products, but also that our labor force is afforded all of the rights entitled them. Consequently, we are committed to the development of tools that will enable us to satisfy our own expectations, those of our customers and, in turn, those of their customers and stakeholders.

What follows is a statement of principles that set forth, at a general level, the principles by which we commit to grow and harvest agricultural products. These principles define benchmarks against which we can be measured with respect to a variety of criteria of interest and importance to all stakeholders.

General Employment Practices: Each participating grower commits to comply with all applicable laws and regulations governing employment in the jurisdictions in which they operate. Employees will be treated fairly and have a workplace free of intimidation, violence, and harassment. Each participating grower is an equal opportunity employer and complies with all relevant nondiscrimination laws and regulations. Participating growers are committed to respectful and open communications with their employees. Each participating grower agrees that when it's necessary to do so, it will only obtain workers from or through a third party that adopts and adheres to these same employment practices and standards.

Forced Labor: Participating growers will not use forced labor. Forced labor includes prison labor, indentured labor, or any other activity in which the worker's freedom is improperly or unlawfully restricted.

Child Labor: Participating growers will not use child labor, as defined by the laws and regulations regarding agriculture activities of the jurisdiction in which the work is being performed.

Implementation: Participating growers commit to develop implementation, training, third-party monitoring, and corrective action programs to ensure the principles set forth in this code of conduct become part of our daily work environment.

New Social Responsibility Program

Introduction: As key contributors to the food supply chain, we participating growers take an interest in the conditions in which we grow and harvest our products. We constructively engage with our customers, employees, and other stakeholders as we strive for continuous improvement. We understand that our reputations, and those of our customers, depend upon the quality of the products that we provide, and that this quality includes not merely the freshness, taste, cost, and timeliness to market of our products, but also that our labor force is afforded all of the rights entitled them. Consequently, we are committed to the development of tools that will enable us to satisfy our own expectations, those of our customers and, in turn, those of their customers and stakeholders.

General Employment Practices: Each participating grower commits to comply with all applicable laws and regulations governing employment in the jurisdictions in which they operate. Migrant and seasonal agricultural workers will be treated fairly and have a workplace free of intimidation, violence, and harassment. Each participating grower is an equal opportunity employer and complies with all relevant nondiscrimination laws and regulations. Participating growers are committed to respectful and open communications with their employees. Each participating grower agrees that when it’s necessary to do so, it will only obtain the services of migrant and seasonal agricultural workers from or through a third party that adopts and adheres to these same employment practices and standards.

Child Labor: Participating growers will not use child labor, as defined by the laws and regulations regarding agriculture activities of the jurisdiction in which the work is being performed.

Analysis: The sum total of differences in text of the two code excerpts above are:

“key players” in SAFE becomes “key contributors” in the "new" code
the "new" code adds the phrase “participating growers". This actually begs the question: Are all FTGE members bound by this code? If so, you'd expect the language to read "FTGE members will..." If not, then which growers are in fact agreeing to comply with the code and which aren't?
“employees” in SAFE becomes “migrant and seasonal agricultural workers” in the "new" code.

There is much more in the "new" code taken straight from SAFE, but you get the point...

********************

2) Fresh Paint: The FTGE’s “new” code takes some provisions from the CIW’s Fair Food code and strips them of all forms of farmworker participation:

New Social Responsibility Program

Complaint System: Participating growers will establish, implement, and enforce a process for migrant and seasonal agricultural workers to pursue work-related complaints without fear of retribution.

Worker rights education: Participating growers will develop a system for informing and educating their migrant and seasonal agricultural workers of all applicable laws, codes and regulations, including, but not limited to, this Code and any local, state or federal laws regarding wages and benefits, immigration rights, working hours, and equal employment opportunity.

Time clocks: Growers will “keep accurate records of hours worked through a time clock or comparable system operated consistently with applicable laws and regulations of the jurisdiction in which the work is being performed".

Fair Food Code

Complaint System: Growers will work with [the buyer] and the Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW) to:

Establish a complaint mechanism that workers can use without fear of retribution

Worker rights education: Growers will work with [the buyer] and the Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW) to:

Establish a worker education program to inform workers of their rights and responsibilities under the code and the law

Time clocks: Growers will keep accurate hours through a time clock system in which employees control the punching of their time cards.

Analysis: In each instance, the FTGE code has taken a provision from the Fair Food code and stripped it of the element of worker participation.

In the case of both the Complaint System and Worker Rights Education, the Fair Food code requires that the systems be established by the grower, the buyer and the CIW working together, while in the FTGE’s code the system is established completely by the grower.

The same holds true in the case of the Time Clocks provision. As with CIW Fair Food code, the FTGE code now provides for the use of time clocks, but unlike the CIW Fair Food code it allows for a “comparable system”, which is undefined and could in theory include the old crew leader time records. Also, unlike the CIW Fair Food code, it does not require that the workers have control of their time cards, which is a basic protection found in any other work environment.

Interestingly, these provisions are the exact provisions the FTGE touts most loudly in its communication with the press around its "new social responsibility program". But not only are they taken from the Fair Food code, they are only taken once all remnants of worker participation have been carefully removed. In other words, all of the form, none of the substance.

********************

3) What’s missing? Provisions of the Fair Food code that the FTGE chose not to include:

As a general matter, and most tellingly, the FTGE has included no penalties for violations of its code. So, even if an FTGE grower chooses to “participate”, which appears to be optional as we mentioned above, there are no consequences if that grower nonetheless violates the code.

Under the Fair Food code, certain violations, like the use of slave labor, result in the immediate loss of business, as happened following the recent Navarette case. Other violations trigger a requirement for remedial plans into which the workers have input.

More specifically, here are a few of the other provisions of the Fair Food code left out of the FTGE’s “New Social Responsibility Program”:

Health and Safety Committee: Growers will take all necessary steps to avoid endangering the safety of employees, including but not limited to having an employee-controlled Health and Safety Committee for advising the employer when conditions in the fields are potentially unsafe, and that has the authority to:

Declare a safety advisory, pursuant to which individual employees shall have the right to cease working, without negative consequences (but without pay), in order to avoid or ameliorate danger due to heat, lightning, chemicals, pesticides or other health or safety related factors; and
Recommend a safety stoppage due to lightning, heat, chemicals, pesticides or other factors. A safety stoppage can only be implemented with the approval of the Grower, which shall not be unreasonably withheld, but the reasonableness with which the Grower responds to such requests for a safety stoppage shall be an audit criterion and shall also be subject to the Complaint Process.

Reconciliation of wages to pounds harvested: If a piece rate is used, growers will systematically reconcile wages paid, including buckets picked, to pounds harvested. [This provision is included to address the age old and pervasive practice of forcing pickers to overfill their buckets, so that they have to pick about 35 pounds of tomatoes to get paid for 32 pounds.]
Zero Tolerance Violations:
- Racial, national origin, religious or sexual preference discrimination on a systematic level, as evidenced by differential treatment (physical or verbal) of workers of a given race, nationality, or religion or crew(s) predominantly of a given race nationality, or religion.
- Sexual harassment on a systematic level, as evidenced by differential treatment (physical or verbal) of women or crew(s) containing women.
- Wage violations on a systematic level, as evidenced by incorrect payments in any payroll period affecting: a) at least 5 % of all pickers; or b) at least 20 % of all pickers in any one crew.
Progress Toward Higher Standards: [The buyer] strongly encourages all growers in the tomato industry to provide working terms and conditions similar to those provided by suppliers outside of the agricultural industry, and will buy from those tomato growers that demonstrate consistent progress towards higher standards such as:
- Provision of employee benefits comparable to other industries
- Recognition of workers’ right to freedom of association
- Provision of training in job skills, language, and other areas that are beneficial to employees’ opportunities for advancement.

********************

Final analysis: Yesterday, we told you that the FTGE's new code left the foxes still squarely in charge of the henhouse. Upon further review, the play stands as called -- the new code is a recipe for continued grower control, and for keeping workers out of the picture when it comes to "social responsibility".

The good news is, we don't have to guess how this will turn out. We'll leave you with these words, from our initial statement on the FTGE's announcement:

"We've seen this before, and it doesn't end well," said Gerardo Reyes of the CIW. "In 2006, the growers came out with their own code of conduct by the name of SAFE, and they swore up and down that they would monitor their own behavior and protect their workers' rights. But what happened next? Yet another brutal slavery operation came to light -- this time with tomato pickers chained inside trucks, beaten, and forced to work in SAFE-certified fields . And the complaints keep coming in, including horrible allegations of sexual harassment and across-the-board minimum wage violations." Reyes concluded, "Quite simply, the stakes are too high to trust the FTGE to protect our rights as workers. We have to work together to get this done right."

Coalition of Immokalee Workers • PO Box 603, Immokalee, FL 34143 • (239) 657-8311 • workers@ciw-online.org